You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front
9/11 Lawsuits for the Justice Department?
2003-06-01
The release of a report critical of the DOJ's post-Sept. 11 roundup of terror suspects could mean legal action against some officials. Certain employees of the Justice Department have been advised to hire lawyers to defend them in a spate of lawsuits that could be filed shortly by people who were detained in the wake of 9/11.
Our legal system at work...
On Monday, the department's Inspector General is expected to release a report that will be critical of the government's roundup of nearly 800 individuals on immigration charges after the terrorist bombings in New York and Washington. The report, according to someone who is familiar with it, will criticize officials for not allowing many of the detainees to see an immigration judge, and holding detainees for lengthy periods even when it was increasingly clear they had nothing to do with terrorism.
They did go a little overboard those first few months.
The Inspector General's office said last July that the report should be ready by October 2002. In January of this year, it said its findings were complete and the report should be out shortly. It's unclear why the report has taken so long to be finalized, but sources say that there were discussions within the administration about the feasibility of delaying its release. Another portion of the report, dealing with conditions of confinement and access to counsel, is expected to be less critical. Among the officials who are most likely to be named in lawsuits, and thus who may be seeking individual counsel, are Justice Department Criminal Division head Michael Chertoff, former DOJ Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh and former Immigration and Naturalization Service head James Ziglar, all of whom were architects of the roundup policy. Plaintiffs have been waiting for the IG report to be issued, believing — apparently accurately — that it could provide them with more ammunition for their complaints.
If they made misakes as part of their jobs, they should be held accountable. But the gummint is on the hook and should pay the lawyers, not these individuals.
Posted by:Steve White

#4  Um ... they were government officials acting in accordance with policy. Their superiors should have the decency to back them up, and let any lawsuits be against the US government, not throw them to the wolves.
Posted by: Ray   2003-06-01 23:05:21  

#3  Yip yip Fred. In our sue-happy country, ya gonna be sued either way. And I for one would rather be sued alive than dead.
Posted by: TPF   2003-06-01 21:26:34  

#2  I think it fell into the "better safe than sorry" category. Subsequent attacks after 9-11 would have resulted in lawsuit precisely because they hadn't done what they did. It was a lose-lose.
Posted by: Fred   2003-06-01 10:44:40  

#1  Errors in judgement,probablly,but understandable never the less.
Posted by: Raptor   2003-06-01 06:24:57  

00:00